The New England Journal of Medicine Sounding Board | “The Need for a Tighter Particulate-Matter Air-Quality Standard” by Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel.
Hsu et al. Yale 2015. Note as mentioned in NEJM current PM2.5 standard is an annual average of 12 ug/m3
Fine particular matter, those with a diameter of ≤2.5 mm [PM2.5] air quality standards are based on decades of research by experts in epidemiology, toxicology and controlled human exposure studies. PM2.5 particles are known contributors to disease including long- and short-term cardiovascular events, respiratory illnesses, death from cancers other than lung cancer, ischemic heard disease, lung cancer and nervous system diseases-cognitive decrements and dementia. “Populations with preexisting health conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, diabetes and obesity) or increased exposures (e.g., disadvantaged populations) represent a substantial portion of the U.S. population…[they] are at increased risk for harm from particulate air pollution, owing to their location near emission sources or to demographic or clinical characteristics (e.g. age or disease status) that increase their susceptibility.” EPA data shows a large number of premature deaths, estimated at 13,500-52,100/year, for those older than 30 living in urban areas due to exposure to PM2.5.
The Independent Particular Matter Review Panel (IPMRP), formed by scientific and medical experts, after EPA panel changes were made after 2018, largely agree with the EPA data mentioned above and are calling, based in scientific data, to lower acceptable PM2.5 levels while acknowledging that “even at a lower end of the range, risk is not reduced to zero.” Since 2018, the newly created EPA panel appointed seven members with a chair from industry and a lone physician. The physician agreed with the IPMRP recommendations but the “committee concluded that is no evidence that calls into the question the adequacy of the current standards.”
What to do?
“There is no doubt that on promulgating a final rule, the EPA will be sued.” Will the courts “defer to a committee that has been arbitrarily and capriciously deprived of a particulate matter-specific expert panel? Or will they look [to] public comments from experts and input from the dismissed [IPMRP] panel?”
Opmerkingen